Sri Prashanth B R vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7444 Kant

                              1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.317 OF 2022

BETWEEN

SRI. PRASHANTH B.R.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHUPATHY B.T.,
445/1, ANNA STREET,
VALALAR NAGAR, TANDALAM,
CHETTITHANGAL PANCHAYATH - 632 401,
RANIPET, WALLAJATH TALUK,
VELLORE DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU STATE.                              ... APPELLANT

[BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE]


AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      SHO.,
      WOMEN POLICE STATION, UDUPI,
      REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

2.    MS. LEKHA KANDASAMI,
      D/O. KANDASAMI,
      AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
      48/116, R.S. NAGARA,
      GUDIYATTAM,
      VELLORE - 632 602,
      TAMIL NADU.                            ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2]

                             ***
                             2




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.46/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred under Section 14A(2) of

the SC and ST (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, 1989

praying to set aside the order dated 10.12.2021 passed

by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, in

Crl.Misc.No.211/2021 and consequently, to enlarge the

appellant on anticipatory bail in the case registered in

Crime No.49/2021 of Women Police Station, Udupi for

the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities),

Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (POA)' Act).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2/defacto complainant and perused the

material available on record.

3. The aforementioned case was registered on a

complaint of respondent No.2/victim. The perusal of the

complaint averments would reveal that victim belong to

Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida) and both the victim and

the accused became friends when they were studying at

the University of Madras in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. It is

averred that the victim informed the accused that she

belong to scheduled caste and her economic condition

was not that good and inspite of that accused convinced

her stating that he will marry her and then involved in an

intimate relationship. Further on 11.06.2021, at the

request of the accused she went to Udupi by train and

stayed with the accused for two days, during which time

he forced her to have physical relationship. Thereafter,

in the following days he started fighting with her saying

that she is from a lower caste and their horoscope is not

matching and later blocked her number and refused to

marry her.

4. The learned counsel for appellant has

contended that even accepting the entire allegations at

its face value, the ingredients of the offence alleged

against the accused are not made out. He contends that

even according to the complainant/victim there was an

intimate relationship between both of them. The victim

is highly educated and she is a major. It is the

contention that reading of the complaint averment would

show that there was consensus and the allegations that

on a false assurance of marriage the offence has been

committed etc., is all false. He has further contended

that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive

to pressurize the appellant to marry the victim against

his will. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge

inspite of observing that there is a long standing

relationship between the complainant and the accused

has failed to properly appreciate the relevant aspects of

the case and erroneously rejected the prayer for

anticipatory bail. He therefore submits that by imposing

any conditions, which the appellant is ready to abide, he

may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 has vehemently contended that the accused

knowing very well that the victim belong to scheduled

caste, on a false promise of marriage has induced her to

indulge in intimate relationship with him and thereafter

refused to marry her. She contends that though the

victim is educated, she has been forced to have a

relationship with the accused and the victim with a

sincere belief that the accused is going to marry her

might have involved in a relationship which does not

mean that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not

made out. She further contends that in the statement of

the victim recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C, she

has narrated the entire incident and she has also stated

that the accused has threatened her with dire

consequences if she registers any case against him. She

therefore contends that in the event of grant of any relief

to the appellant there are chances of threatening the

victim and also hampering the case of prosecution. She

therefore seeks to reject the appeal.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader

contends that the accused is absconding from the date of

registration of the case and he is required for custodial

interrogation as the medical examination of the accused

and the recovery of his mobile phone is very much

necessary for the purpose of investigation. He submits

that the accused may intimidate the victim or pose

threat to her and therefore submits that the trial Court

having regard to all the facts and circumstances has

rightly rejected the prayer seeking anticipatory bail. He

therefore seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. I have carefully perused the material on

record. The reading of the complaint averments would

show that the accused and the victim became friends

prior to 2018 when they were pursuing their higher

studies at University of Madras, Taramani Campus,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The accused was pursuing M.Phl

(Endocronology) and the victim was doing her M.Sc

(Biomedical Zenatics). It is alleged that during 2018, the

victim refused to have a relationship with the accused

when he requested her and she informed that she belong

to scheduled caste. However, later he convinced her by

saying that he will marry only her and hence both of

them involved in a deep intimacy love relationship. It is

further alleged that on 11.06.2021, the victim traveled

by train to Udupi, the ticket which was booked by

accused himself and she stayed in his room for two days,

wherein he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The

complaint averments would further reveal that later on

the accused started fighting with the victim saying that

she is from lower caste and their horoscope was not

matching and he blocked her number and refused to

marry her etc.

8. The statement of the victim is already

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In the said

statement she has made further allegations against the

accused. She has also alleged that the accused has

threatened her that he will show her nude videos to her

father etc., if any complaint is lodged against him.

9. The fact remains that both the accused and

the victim were well acquainted with each other even

prior to 2018 and their relationship continued till

17.06.2021. The complaint is lodged on 19.11.2021. In

the Complaint it is stated that on 27.08.2021 the matter

was informed to the police and the accused was called to

the police station wherein he agreed to marry the victim,

however, later on he blocked her number and refused to

marry.

10. From the material on record, at this stage it

cannot be said that only on the ground that the victim

belong to scheduled caste, the offence was committed

against her. According to the victim with a false

assurance of marriage the accused committed sexual

intercourse with her and later refused to marry her.

Whether the ingredients of the offences alleged against

the appellant has been made out or not is a matter which

has to be established by the prosecution during trial.

The appellant has undertaken to cooperate with the

investigation and abide by conditions. Considering the

entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

of the view that without expressing any view on the

merits of the case, by imposing stringent conditions, the

relief sought by the appellant can be granted. Hence, the

following

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Criminal

Misc.No.211/2021 by the Court of Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Udupi, rejecting the petition filed by the

accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby set

aside.

Appellant is ordered to be released in the event of

his arrest in Crime No.49/2021 of Women Police Station,

Udupi, subject to following conditions:

i. Appellant/accused shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with likesum surety.

ii. He shall furnish his address proof and shall inform the Investigating Officer if there is change in address.

iii. He shall not put any threat or inducement to the victim either directly or indirectly and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence in any manner.

iv. He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station on every 2nd and 4th of Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the investigation or until further orders.

v. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.

vi. He shall subject himself for medical examination and shall cooperate with the investigation.

vii. He shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution or the victim are at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 is entitled

for a fee of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) from

the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Sd/-

JUDGE

rv/HB